The triumviral period saw extensive propagandistic struggles (15–24 on the concept of propaganda) between Octavian and Antony. Leaving to one side the analysis of triumviral coins or Augustan poetry, in order better to focus on the rhetorical dimensions of invective (vituperatio), L. Borgies successively deals with themes (Part I, 49–347), audiences (II, 351–400) and forms (III, 403–59) of political propaganda from 44 to 30 b.c.
B.’s close examination of the fragmentary documentation leads him to emphasise the historical authenticity of most triumviral invectives, and to go against the current historiographic trend that considers these struggles as a (partial) invention by imperial authors. His remarks on the evidence also allow him to discuss the common idea that only the years between the Battle of Naulochus (36 b.c.) and Actium (31 b.c.) were marked by propaganda: he instead opts for a prevalence of political propaganda from 44 b.c. onwards. By measuring the varying intensity of these conflicts, B. distinguishes four chronological phases: (1) the open struggle of 44–43 and (2) its subsequent abatement as the triumvirs fought Sextus Pompey from 42 to 36, before (3) the return to an ‘open fight’ between 36 and 31. Then (4) followed a ‘battle of memories’ from Actium to the very end of antiquity. Another important conclusion of this book is to remind us that propaganda spread throughout the Roman world: its diffusion, fostered by clientelae and by changes in political allegiances, was permitted by a road system centred on Rome that facilitated the fanning out of rumours and of pamphlets, and also by the writing of political graffiti. B. considers invective (a literary form often dismissed as merely frivolous or insulting) as a political weapon, intended to harm an opponent, which was always characterised by a coherent set of themes and phrases. Interestingly, B. therefore thinks that propagandistic attacks were the product of some kind of coordination by each of the triumvirs’ political entourages. The author finally draws our attention to the influence of the triumviral struggles on Augustan discourse, underlining that most of the themes were re-used by the first emperor to his own advantage. The nobility of the origins lost its symbolic dominance and was supplanted by the integration of provincial elites; Octavian's crudelitas gave way to Augustus’ severitas, inspired by the Republic and paradoxically maximised by the clementia Augusti; the crucial importance of virtus remained, but was redirected towards barbarians; eventually, the moral superiority of the West was celebrated over a decadent East.
In this book, B. reveals the variety and omnipresence of propagandistic struggles during a period of stasis, and confronts the problem of political communication in the shaping of ‘public opinion’ in Rome. He succeeds in drawing a concrete portrait of an historical object as labile as verbal propaganda, for example when he considers the ‘material realities’ of vituperatio in Part III. B.’s capacity to jump from a general demonstration (often balanced and founded on a solid knowledge of modern bibliography) to more detailed studies is one of the strengths of this work, as is the author's ability to summarise historiographical debates and to use the discussion as a basis for his own further development (see the pages on ignobilitas, specifically 63–9 about Cassius Parmensis). By publishing this useful book so quickly, Latomus offered B. the opportunity to integrate, often in precise and useful ways, studies that were published as recently as 2016. This paradoxically reveals some important bibliographical gaps, such as R. Mangiameli's studies about the political communication of triumviral imperatores (Tra duces e milites: Forme di comunicazione politica al tramonto della Repubblica, 2012) or C. Courrier's book on plebeian culture (La Plèbe de Rome et sa culture (fin du IIe siècle av. J.-C. – fin du Ier siècle ap. J.-C.), 2014). This last resource could sometimes have helped B. to be slightly more balanced on some specific cases, namely the dodekatheos (Suet., Aug. 70.1–2), where B. follows K. Scott's influential dating to 39–37 b.c., but ignores D. Palombi's hypothesis that the banquet possibly took place in 43 b.c. (175–7; cf. Courrier's discussion, pp. 834–5).
B.’s textual discussions and selections of examples are usually welcome, but the difference in length between the three parts of the book led me to wonder whether it would not have been better to adopt a chronological point of view, corresponding (for example) to the four above-mentioned phases. Perhaps this option might have strengthened B.’s argument for an evolution of the propagandistic phenomenon over time, even if the state of our documentation (like the endurance of certain themes of attack) does not always make it easy to distinguish clear chronological periods. A final recurrent problem is B.’s tendency to repeat in their entirety some parts of his demonstration (for example 71–3 and 251–3, on the well-known graffito of 43 b.c. where Octavian is nicknamed ‘argentarius’: Suet., Aug. 70.3) and to multiply, sometimes to excess, the introductions and conclusions of each part. This occasionally draws the reader's attention to the origins of the book in an extensive Master's Dissertation, defended in 2015 and published almost immediately thereafter. Despite these few criticisms, this study is intelligent, clear and erudite, and thus on a par with a good number of books written by more experienced scholars.
